3 ms·
Fraud is considered rare, and trust is fundamental. In which case, you choose to believe what they said they did and interrogate of what they said they did is r
by 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
Fraud is considered rare, and trust is fundamental. In which case, you choose to believe what they said they did and interrogate of what they said they did is reasonable. Nobody has the budget, time, and sometimes magical fingers required to reproduce every submission.
You can disagree with this approach, but then there needs to be huge budgets set aside for reproduction.
- vermilingua 3y agoFraud is considered rare, but maybe not actually that rare; hence the replication crisis.
- PaulHoule 3y agoA lot of times it is not deliberate fraud just incompetence. There is the strange fact that the answer to precision QED calculations alway seemed to change when experimental results changed. One enduring lesson from a physics PhD is that a 50 page long calculation without unit tests is… wrong.
- nextos 3y agoMisrepresentation of data and selective reporting to fit particular agendas of the last author are quite common. I have been involved in a couple of projects where I was asked to misrepresent or misreport findings. Sadly, integrity offices will rarely conduct serious investigations, and won't conclude misconduct happened unless what was done was incredibly harmful. Professors are often too big to fail, they attract tons of grants and are politically entrenched.
- aydyn 3y ago> Fraud is considered rare, and trust is fundamental. This is a nice sentiment but demonstrably false. Fraud is common in academia and everyone knows it. A large part of academic science is a grift for funding. Is not "Trust" that is fundamental, is tit-for-tat.